A federal judge ruled that Google holds a monopoly in the online advertising technology market, echoing the Justice Department's claims in its antitrust lawsuit. The judge found Google's dominance in various aspects of the ad tech ecosystem, including ad buying tools for publishers and advertisers, as well as the ad exchange that connects them, gives the company an unfair advantage and harms competition. This ruling is a significant victory for the government in its effort to rein in Google's power and could potentially lead to structural changes in the company's ad tech business.
Tim investigated the precision of location data used for targeted advertising by requesting his own data from ad networks. He found that location information shared with these networks, often through apps on his phone, was remarkably precise, pinpointing his location to within a few meters. He successfully identified his own apartment and even specific rooms within it based on the location polygons provided by the ad networks. This highlighted the potential privacy implications of sharing location data with apps, demonstrating how easily and accurately individuals can be tracked even without explicit consent for precise location sharing. The experiment revealed a lack of transparency and control over how this granular location data is collected, used, and shared by advertising ecosystems.
HN commenters generally agreed with the article's premise that location tracking through in-app advertising is pervasive and concerning. Some highlighted the irony of privacy policies that claim not to share precise location while effectively doing so through ad requests containing latitude/longitude. Several discussed technical details, including the surprising precision achievable even without GPS and the potential misuse of background location data. Others pointed to the broader ecosystem issue, emphasizing the difficulty in assigning blame to any single actor and the collective responsibility of ad networks, app developers, and device manufacturers. A few commenters suggested potential mitigations like VPNs or disabling location services entirely, while others expressed resignation to the current state of surveillance. The effectiveness of "Limit Ad Tracking" settings was also questioned.
Summary of Comments ( 51 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43717705
Hacker News commenters largely agree with the judge's ruling that Google holds a monopoly in online ad tech. Several highlight the conflict of interest inherent in Google simultaneously owning the dominant ad exchange and representing both buyers and sellers. Some express skepticism that structural separation, as suggested by the Department of Justice, is the right solution, arguing it could stifle innovation and benefit competitors more than consumers. A few point out the irony of the government using antitrust laws to regulate a company built on "free" products, questioning if Google's dominance truly harms consumers. Others discuss the potential impact on ad revenue for publishers and the broader implications for the digital advertising landscape. Several commenters express cynicism about the effectiveness of antitrust actions in the long run, expecting Google to adapt and maintain its substantial market power. A recurring theme is the complexity of the ad tech ecosystem, making it difficult to predict the actual consequences of any intervention.
The Hacker News post titled "Google Is a Monopolist in Online Advertising Tech, Judge Says" linking to a New York Times article about the same topic has generated a moderate number of comments, discussing various aspects of the ruling and its potential implications.
Several commenters delve into the specifics of the case, pointing out the complexities of the ad tech market and the difficulty in defining clear boundaries for monopolistic behavior. One commenter highlights the judge's acknowledgment of Google's innovation, but emphasizes that the ruling focuses on the company's exclusionary practices rather than its inherent technological superiority. This comment also mentions the open questions about the remedy, suggesting that a breakup of the ad tech business is unlikely but behavioral changes might be enforced.
Another commenter draws parallels to Microsoft's antitrust case, arguing that Google's integration of its ad exchange and ad server provides a competitive advantage that's difficult for rivals to overcome. They express skepticism about structural separation being effective and suggest that focusing on conduct remedies is a more likely outcome.
A further comment expresses concern that Google's dominance in online advertising might stifle innovation, using the metaphor of a "toll collector" to illustrate how Google extracts profits from the online advertising ecosystem. This commenter suggests that the ruling could potentially lead to more competition and benefit smaller players in the market.
Other commenters focus on the broader implications of the ruling, discussing the role of government regulation in the tech industry. Some express support for antitrust actions against large tech companies, while others argue that such interventions can be counterproductive and stifle innovation.
A few commenters also touch upon the potential impact on publishers and advertisers, with some suggesting that the ruling could lead to lower advertising costs and a more level playing field for smaller publishers.
While there isn't a single overwhelmingly compelling comment, the collection of comments provides a nuanced perspective on the ruling, highlighting the different viewpoints and potential outcomes. The discussion reflects the complex nature of the antitrust case and the challenges involved in regulating the rapidly evolving online advertising landscape.